P A P E R

Ship Energy Efficiency Management Requiresa Total Solution Approach

A U T H O RPhilip J. BallouJeppesen a Boeing Company

A B S T R A C T

Ship and fleet operating efficiencies are multifaceted and interdependent. As

such, efficiency management must involve an integrated solution that extendsacross the entire operation of the fleet. No single metric can be used to indicatesuccess or failure of improving overall efficiency. Rather, a comparative analysisof multiple metrics is required. Furthermore, to be viable, efficiency managementmust accommodate operating priorities, goals, and constraints. Technology tosave fuel and reduce carbon footprint is only useful if critical mission objectivesare also met. Most ships can reduce fuel consumption simply by slowing down,albeit at the expense of increased passage duration. Tactical objectives that re-quire fast transit times or reliable just-in-time arrival may justify the associatedincrease in fuel consumption. Ship operators fulfilling those objectives mustlook for ways other than slow steaming to improve energy efficiency, including,for example, deployment optimization, smart voyage planning, and onboard en-ergy management. Other key metrics associated with operating efficiency includehealth and safety of crew and cargo, ship life cycle costs, and unscheduled time inport. Through strategic application of multiple efficiency management tools, thesecosts may be maintained or reduced while supporting the operational objectivesand constraints of ship, fleet, and operator. All of these aspects of ship and fleetoperating efficiency may be quantitatively compared to previous baselines usingobjective benchmarking methodologies.Keywords: ship efficiency SEEMP energy emissions

particulatematter (soot), environmental

control areas (ECA) are being estab-

Overview

One would be hard-pressed to findanyone to argue against improving shipoperating efficiency, given increasingpressures from today’s socioeconomicand environmental realities. In oceanshipping, bunker fuel prices have morethan quadrupled in the last decade, fromabout $170/metric ton in 2000. Indi-cations of global climate change aredriving new legislation aimed at reduc-ing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,which are directly proportional to fuelconsumption. In an effort to reducepollution from other exhaust emissions,including sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, and

lished along coastlines of the UnitedStates and Europe.

What constitutes a net improve-ment in efficiency may not be so ob-vious. Fuel consumption rates may beeasily reduced by slowing down, called“slow steaming,” but voyage durationincreases as a result, which may beunacceptable for time-critical shipmentsor cause the ship to be caught in a fast-moving storm. Many maritime tech-nology companies focus on improvingefficiency in a few specific areas with-out considering the impact on otheroperating requirements. For example,low-friction hull paint may offer im-proved fuel efficiency at sea, but itslower durability or resistance tomarine

growth may require more frequentand higher cost maintenance. Someweather routing service providers op-timize ship routes based on runningat fixed speeds and are unable to ac-commodate speed management suchas slowing down to let a storm passin front of the vessel or to postponearrival at a port that is known to becongested at the planned arrival time.

Combining several different strate-gies without a clearly integrated planmakes it difficult to determine theirindividual effectiveness. Some proce-dures may only offer gains under cer-tain operating conditions. Even worse,one procedure may be incompatible orinterfere with another, resulting in a net

January/Febru

decrease in efficiency or preventing theoperator from being able to achieve itshigh-priority goals.

As one might conclude from thisdiscussion, the definition of efficiencycan vary with every application and everyship. One might say that it always boilsdown to cost, but this would reveal onlypart of the total picture. In military ap-plications, for example, the top priorityfor efficiency may be to deliver criticalmaterials, equipment, and personnel asquickly as possible to expeditionaryforces in a battle zone, or to provideemergency relief to a disaster area. Forshipping of perishable fruit, itmay be torestrict ship motions to prevent bruis-ing and to minimize transit times. For

ary 2013 Volume 47 Number 1 83

just-in-time manufacturing or retailsellers, efficiency may be gained by theshipped inventories arriving just intime—not too early and not too late.On-time arrival can also improve the ef-ficiencies of port services, including con-necting transportation services by roador rail. Of course, ship operating safety,which includes such human factors ascrew comfort and health, is an essentialcomponent of operating efficiency.

In early 2009, the Oil CompaniesInternationalMarine Forum (OCIMF)outlined these concerns in its publica-tion, Energy Efficiency and Fuel Man-agement, which describes a wide rangeof auditable, prioritized methodologiesaimed at reducing CO2 emissions byimproving vessel and voyage efficien-cies. Four main areas were addressed:■ minimizing energy waste,■ promoting energy effic iency

awareness,■ implementing vessel and voyage

strategies to minimize energy usage,■ promoting cooperation with char-

terers and others to facilitate energyefficient operations.

In its 2012 publication, Guidance

for the Development of a Ship EnergyEfficiency Management Plan (SEEMP),the International Maritime Organization(IMO) joins OCIMF and others in rec-ognizing that ship operating efficiencyis a complex multifaceted problem. Inan effort to advance standardized met-rics for ship efficiency during designand operation, IMO introduced guide-lines for calculating an Energy EfficiencyDesign Index (EEDI) and an EnergyEfficiency Operating Indicator (EEOI)(IMO, 2009a, 2012a). Both of these in-dices compute the amount of CO2 emit-ted per transport work (i.e., cargo load anddistance traveled). TheEEDI is calculatedunder predefined operating conditionsthrough computer simulation during thedesign phase of new ships and is vali-

84 Marine Technology Society Journa

dated in sea trials. The EEOI is used tomonitor the ongoing efficiency of shipsalready in operation. In July 2011,MARPOL Annex VI regulations wereamended, adding a new Chapter 4 thatmandates using EEDI for new ship de-signs and implementing SEEMPs forall existing ships. The regulations, whichapply to all ships of 400 gross tons andabove, entered into force on 1 January2013.

On the military side, the U.S. Navyhas had an interest for several decades inoperating safety and efficiency at sea. Sincethe 1990s, in a program called Incentiv-ized Energy Conservation (i-ENCON),ship crews have been trained in opera-tional procedures and strategies to reduceenergy consumption. The Navy’s FleetWeather Centers (FWC) in San Diego,CA, and Norfolk, VA, use a variety oftools, including computerized route op-timization processes called OptimumTrack Ship Routing (OTSR), to im-prove fleet fuel efficiency while miti-gating weather-related navigation hazards.OTSR provides shore-based routers withrecommendations for minimum transittime, while avoiding environmental con-ditions that could cause excessivemotion,crew discomfort, cargo damage, and/orhull fatigue. It also provides routing guid-ance in the vicinity of strong ocean cur-rents and restrictedwaters.More recently,with a goal to upgrade its aging OTSRtools, the U.S. Navy has started a pro-gram called Smart Voyage PlanningDecision Aid (SVPDA). It is also test-ing onboard fuel efficiency monitoringtools, called Shipboard Energy Dash-board (SED), that gives sailors visualfeedback on energy usage in real time.

Developing an EfficiencyManagement Strategy

The objectives in formulating aneffective efficiency management strat-

l

egy are first to identify all the variousefficiency parameters that are applicableto a given activity and then to assignpriorities, metrics, and goals to thoseparameters. It should be understoodthat because many of these factors arerelated and interdependent, improvingthe efficiency of one may reduce theefficiency of another. The objective,then, is to maximize the efficiencies ofthe highest priority parameters whilemitigating loss of efficiency, if possible,in less critical areas. In the final analysis,if one is successful at maximizing the ef-ficiencies in all critical areas, albeit at theexpense of noncritical ones, this may beviewed as an overall successful outcome.

Table 1 outlines potential areas forimproving ship energy efficiency as pro-posed by IMO in its SEEMP guide-lines. IMO does not specify what metricsshould be used for each parameter, al-though it does recommend using theEEOI calculation for overall SEEMPtracking.

As noted by IMO, the measureslisted in its SEEMPguidelines are by nomeans exhaustive but are suggested forconsideration for a given ship’s SEEMP.Not all measures are applicable for agiven ship, activity, or company. Also,some measures may have higher prior-ities in some applications than others.In our own experience with commer-cial shipping companies, other measure-ments of operating efficiency frequentlycome into play. Table 2 lists some ofthe more common ones.

More Bang for the BuckIn its publication, Pathways to Low

Carbon Shipping, Det Norske Veritas(DNV) estimated the cost per ton ofCO2 for different measures aimed atreducing fuel consumption and associ-atedGHGemissions (Alvik et al., 2009).This list is illuminating because it

TABLE 1

IMO recommended measures for SEEMP.

Efficiency Improvement Strategy

MEPC.1/Circ. 683 Section Comments

Fuel-efficient operations

Improved voyage planning

4.2-4.3 This category addresses ship route optimization in planning andexecution using available software tools. IMO offers guidelines forvoyage planning in its resolution A.893(21) (25 Nov. 1999).

Weather routing

4.4 Weather routing is a less comprehensive method of route planning thatallows ships to avoid adverse weather conditions. Some solutions,however, may increase fuel consumption.

Just-in-time

4.5-4.6 This category is related to the concept of “Virtual Arrival,” whereby,through communication with the destination port, a ship may slowdown and delay arrival to avoid port congestion.

Speed optimization

4.7-4.10 Speed optimization includes “slow steaming,” but also considers theoptimal speed for a given ship design, as well as gradual increases inspeed when leaving port. Speed reduction can result in adverse con-sequences, including increased vibration, soot, and fuel consumption.

Optimized shaft power

4.11 Optimizing shaft power includes running at constant RPM and usage ofelectronic engine management systems rather than human intervention.

Optimized ship handling

Optimized trim

4.12 Most ships are designed to operate most efficiently with a designatedamount of cargo at a certain speed. Adjusting fore/aft trim can havea significant effect on fuel consumption for a given draft and speed.Trim effects may be less noticeable in heavy seas.

Optimized ballast

4.13-4.15 Ballast is used to adjust trim, and has a significant effect on steering andautopilot response. A ship’s Ballast Water Management Plan mustalso be observed.

Optimized propeller and inflow

4.16-4.17 Improvements to propeller design and water inflow to the propeller canincrease propulsive efficiency.

Optimized use of rudder and autopilot

4.18-4.20 Misadjusted or poorly designed automated heading and steering controlsystems can cause excessive fuel consumption due to added resistanceand distance sailed off track.

Maintenance and logistics

Hull maintenance

4.21-4.24 Hull maintenance includes cleaning, repairing, and painting of the hull toreduce roughness, and propeller cleaning and polishing.

Propulsion system

4.25-4.27 Efficient operation of the propulsion system can be improved by usingautomated electronic engine control and monitoring systems. Preventivemaintenance and timely repairs of malfunctions are essential for efficientoperation.

Waste heat recovery

4.28-4.29 Products are now available that use thermal heat losses from powerplants and exhaust gas to generate electricity and/or additionalpropulsion.

Improved fleet management

4.30-4.31 Effective fleet management offers one of the largest potential improve-ments in ship operating efficiency. (IMO and others estimate potentialfuel savings as high as 50%.) The guiding objectives are to maximize paidpassages and minimize ballast voyages for the period.

continued

January/February 2013 Volume 47 Number 1 85

TABLE 1

Continued.

8

Efficiency Improvement Strategy

6 Marine Technology Society

MEPC.1/Circ. 683 Section

Journal

Comments

Improved cargo handling

4.32 Port efficiency is an important component of total ship efficiency. Delaysat port due to congestion or inefficient usage of port facilities result inhigher energy consumption as well as delayed departures. Efficienttransfer to connecting transportation services (road, rail, etc.) shouldalso be considered in the total efficiency calculation.

Energy management

4.33-4.34 This parameter addresses efficient use of shipboard electrical services.Thermal insulation and optimized locations for stowing refrigerationcontainers are factors in this measure.

Fuel type

4.35 Changing to some fuel types, for example, liquid natural gas (LNG),improves EEDI /EEOI because they produce lower carbon emissions perton. Switching to higher viscosity bunker may reduce operating cost,although this does not improve EEOI. In either case, modifications tothe power train may be necessary.

Other measures

4.36-4.39 This category includes new innovations in tracking fuel consumption,renewable energy resources, using shore power (cold ironing), andreducing hull friction (bubbles, etc.)

TABLE 2

Efficiency measures beyond IMO guidelines.

Description of Measure

Comments

Improved on-time arrival consistency

In some commercial shipping applications, on-time arrival is para-mount, with late arrivals resulting in reprimands and costly penalties.In these situations, captains often “sprint and loiter” to assure meetingtheir ETA. This has a high cost in fuel consumption. Effective use ofroute optimization tools can increase on-time arrival reliability whilereducing fuel consumption. Metric: % on-time arrivals for the period

Fewer routing decision errors

A single routing error for a given passage, for example, one that putsthe ship in the middle of a severe storm, can negate the entire savingsfor that season. The objective is to reduce the occurrence of sucherrors. Metric: standard deviation of fuel consumption for actual routecompared to that of optimal route for the period

Reduced excessive motions

Limiting ship motions reduces ship and cargo damage, increases crewcomfort, and can reduce a ship’s structural maintenance and increaseits longevity. Metrics: % occurrence of excessive motions over athreshold for distance travelled, number of reported crew illnesses oraccidents due to motion for the period, damage and repair costs forthe period, ship life cycle costs

Route optimization including environmentally controlled areas (ECA)

ECAs along national coastlines require switching to cleaner, morecostly fuel, and reducing speed. These can impact cost of operationand arrival time. Ship route optimization tools can include ECAs intheir calculations to determine the best point to enter an ECA. Metric:Total fuel cost per passage involving ECA.

suggests what measures may providethe best return on investment (ROI).Because some measures generate sig-nificant fuel savings at low cost, the netresult, even in the first year of imple-mentation, is cost savings. Other mea-sures require significant investment,resulting in a net expense, at least forthe first year. Table 3, derived frominformation in the DNV publication,shows examples of the estimated costsof key candidates for efficiency im-provements (i.e., measures projected byDNV to provide potential reduction ofat least 15 million tons of CO2 per yearfor the world shipping fleet in 2030, orat least 1% of the projected baseline of1,530 million tons of CO2 per year).

Meaningful MetricsThe simple act of minimizing bun-

ker consumption and associated carbonemissions while carrying themost cargo

the furthest distance seems like itshould be a relatively straightforwardcalculation. Indeed, the IMO recom-mends that, as aminimum, the relativelystraightforward EEOI calculation, firstdescribed in MEPC.1/Circ.684, shouldbe used to track efficiency performanceaccording to a ship’s SEEMP,

EEOI ¼ CO2 emissiontransport work

where CO2 emission is calculated bymultiplying total fuel consumptionby the carbon emission factor for thegiven fuel type, and transport work isthe cargo load multiplied by distancetraveled.

Examples of inputs needed for theEEOI calculation are outlined inTable 4.Update frequencies and input sourcesare suggested, although these arenot specified in the IMO guidelines).

January/Febru

Figure 1 illustrates typical EEOIcalculations over a period of 12 monthsfor an actual container ship makingtransoceanic passages in the North Pa-cific. A lower number indicates betterefficiency. The higher EEOI values dur-ing the winter months may be an in-dication of the effect of heavy weatheron fuel consumption (and carbon emis-sions), but closer investigation wouldbe needed to rule out other possiblecauses, such as lower cargo loads duringthose periods.

While the IMO’s EEDI and EEOIfocus on carbon emissions, realistically,most commercial shipping companieswill be looking at the bottom line, i.e.,dollars spent per cargo × distance. Addedto this equation is a time factor, for ex-ample, “per month,” “per season,” or“per year.” More voyages with highercargo loads per evaluation period trans-late into higher efficiency. Currently,this calculation typically uses as a base-line the average fuel consumption froma prior like period, known in the in-dustry as pro forma, against which actualconsumption is compared. This ap-proach has the obvious shortcomingthat it does not take into account var-iations in the severity of weather en-countered in the actual passages. Evenwhen a route is optimized, severeweather conditions have a negativeimpact on fuel consumption becauseships must be diverted around stormsor use greater power to overcome stronghead seas andwinds.Waiting for a stormto pass may result in late arrival, whichcan translate into delays and fines atthe destination port, as well as fewerpassages for a given period.

This leads us to consider other bench-marking methods that address the var-iability of weather conditions and otherfactors that affect a ship’s fuel consump-tion. In a patent-pending benchmarkingmethodology developed at Jeppesen,

TABLE 3

Cost per ton CO2 averted (based on DNV’s Pathway to Low Carbon Shipping, 2009).

Measure

Cost/ton CO2 Averted (US$/ton)

Voyage planning and execution

−$90/ton

Speed reduction (Virtual Arrival and port efficiency)

−$75/ton

Propulsion efficiency improvements

−$65/ton

Trim and draft

−$60/ton

Frequency converters for AC motor speed control

−$50/ton

Contra-rotating propellers

−$40/ton

Weather routing

−$35/ton

Kite-assisted propulsion

$0/ton

Gas fuel (LNG, etc.)

$20/ton

Electronic engine control

$25/ton

Fuel cells as aux engine

$60/ton

Speed reduction coupled with increase in fleet size

$80/ton

Fixed sails/wings

$105/ton

Waste heat recovery

$150/ton

Cold ironing (switching to shore-based power in port)

$200/ton

ary 2013 Volume 47 Number 1 87

the fuel efficiency of an actual passageis calculated by comparing the fuelconsumption of the actual route takenby the ship against that of the optimalroute that could have been taken if onehad 20/20 hindsight of the weather,currents, and other factors. The opti-mal route is calculated using Jeppesen’sroute optimization software called VesselandVoyageOptimizationSolution (VVOS),

88 Marine Technology Society Journa

one of several components that com-prise Jeppesen’s efficiency managementtool suite. VVOS uses advanced routingalgorithms, hydrodynamic and perfor-mance modeling, and high-resolutionocean forecasts to find the best pos-sible route solutions for a specified rangeof arrival times that minimize fuelconsumption and observe safe operatingand user-specified limits. Unlike tradi-

l

tional weather routing, true route opti-mization incorporates a detailed modelof each ship’s dynamic motion responseand performance characteristics.Weather,wind, wave, and current data, includ-ing ensemble forecasts, are consideredin finding the optimal route. Forecastswith higher uncertainties result in moreconservative solutions than those thatare more stable.

TABLE 4

Inputs for EEOI calculation.

Input

Units Update Frequency Source of Input

Fuel type and quantity

Depends on fuel type. Examples: Daily Vessel noon report 1) Metric tonnes (MT)2) Million British thermal unit(MMBtu)

Vessel type

Select from: One-time entry per vessel Initial set-up 1) Dry cargo carrier, liquid tanker,gas tanker, ro-ro cargo ship, andgeneral cargo ship2) Ship carrying combination ofcontainers and other cargos3) Container ship carrying solelycontainers4) Passenger ship5) Car ferry or carrier6) Railway or ro-ro vessel

Work (cargo)

Depends on vessel type and application.Examples:

Per passage

Vessel noon report

1) MT of cargo carried2) MT of total mass of cargo andcontainers3) Number of loaded TEU @ 10MTper TEU plus # empty TEU @ 2MTper TEU, or total # TEU loaded orempty4) Gross MT of the ship, or # ofpassengers5) Number of car units, or occupiedlane meters (m)6) Number of railway cars andfreight vehicles, or occupied lanemeters

Distance (GPS position)

Nautical miles (nm) or kilometers (km) Daily Vessel noon report

Time for passage

Hours (h) Daily Vessel noon report

Time in port

Hours (h) Daily Vessel noon report

The resulting optimal route takesinto account the actual weather condi-tions, currents, vessel performance andmotion response, and other factors suchas user-specified limits, in finding themost fuel-efficient route that arrives atthe destination port at the desired time.The benefit of this method is that thebaseline or budget against which theship’s actual performance is comparedis adjusted to correct for unavoidable fac-tors, such as weather, load conditions,schedule, and mission-specific constraints(Figure 2).

Route simulations using VVOS canalso be used to compare different voy-age optimization strategies. Figure 3illustrates that for this particular pas-sage, a savings of 28 tons can be realizedsimply by using speedmanagement ratherthan constant RPM.

By comparing ships using a par-ticular efficiency improvement strategyagainst a control group of ships notusing it, the ROI in terms of fuel sav-ings may be determined for that strat-egy. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate some ofthe benefits realized using VVOS forroute planning and execution. In a com-parison of 32 passages using conven-tional weather routing to 40 similar

passages by the same ship class usingVVOS, an average of 63 tons of fuelper passage, or about 4% of the total,were saved. Furthermore, the standarddeviation, which reflects consistencyof routing improvements, was substan-tially improved, as seen in Figure 5; inover 50% of the passages, fuel con-sumption was within 0–2% of the op-timal route solution. This consistencyis what will reliably generate long-termsavings, less likely to be negated by grossroute planning and/or execution errors.

Some companies are investigatingreconfiguring a ship to burn cheaperhigher-viscosity bunker fuels, such asIFO 420, 500, 600, or 700 grades in-stead of the more common IFO 380.Unlike switching to lower-carbon fuelssuch as LNG, this conversion wouldnot reduce the vessel’s EEOI becausethe carbon emission factors for bothviscosities of bunker are essentially equal.Also, such conversions are not withoutcomplications; the vessel’s power trainmust be able to accommodate rougherfuel grades and more complex handlingissues. (Notwithstanding, there are alsoissues with using low-emission fuelssuch as LNG for ship propulsion. LNGhas only half the energy density of bun-

January/Febru

ker fuels and therefore requires a greatervolume for equivalent energy capacity.Its lower viscosity complicates storage,as sloshing can lead to instability and/ortank damage.) But using IFO 700instead of IFO 380 could result in a3-4% reduction in fuel cost, which trans-lates into tens of thousands of dollars fora single transoceanic passage, potentiallyenough to justify the conversion cost.

Many efficiency metrics that are crit-ical to some companies are only indirectlyrelated, or not at all, to fuel consump-tion or carbon emissions. Here are someexamples:

Quality of operation■ Percent on-time arrival■ Standard deviation of fuel consump-

tion for a given passage■ Number of incidents associated

with excessive motion■ Number and severity of damage

incidents■ Number and severity of crew/

passenger motion-related illnessor accidents

Cost of operation■ Fuel cost per transport work■ Paid transport work per fleet size■ Actual life cycle cost compared to

budget

Port efficiency

■ Time in port saved by reducingspeed to delay arrival and avoidport congestion (also known as“Virtual Arrival”)

■ Total time spent in port/berth■ Cargo loading and unloading

efficiency

Maintenance and upgrades

■ Adherence to recommended main-tenance schedule

■ Percent ships in fleet with technologyimprovements such as onboard routeoptimization software, low-frictionhull coatings, updated autopilot,electronic engine controls, and/orfuel switching

FIGURE 1

EEOI for container ship over 12 months.

ary 2013 Volume 47 Number 1 89

To summarize, it seems prudent fora vessel’s SEEMP to include the stan-dard EEOI calculation for a generaloverview of its relative success, as wellas secondary metrics that may providebetter understanding regarding the causeand effect of various efficiency factors.Using an accepted industry standardmetric such as IMO’s EEOI allows oneto make general comparisons of thevessel’s performance with a larger cross-section of the shipping industry. Simplevariants of the EEOI, such as a fuelefficiency indicator (that omits the car-bon emission factors), and a cost effi-ciency indicator (that replaces the carbonemission factors with fuel cost factors)may also provide useful insights. Bysupplementing these basic indicatorswithmore application-specific metrics,one can focus on areas of performancethat are of particular interest to the vesselowner and/or operator.

90 Marine Technology Society Journa

Total Solution Approach—An Example

Evaluating operating efficiency is anelusive, complex process. As an operationbecomes more efficient, its interactionsbecome increasingly interdependent;squeeze in one place, and a bulge willappear in another. This is a good sign,because it indicates that little is beingwasted. What is important is to maxi-mize efficiency in the areas of highestpriority for a given business, while mit-igating losses in the less important ones.A comprehensive SEEMP can help op-erators understand how to do this withconfidence of achieving a positive out-come over the long term.

The value of the SEEMP, however, isonly as good as the information and in-sight it provides. In theworst case, it is nomore than a superficial report that meetsthe MARPOL Annex VI requirement.At best, the improvements in operat-

l

ing efficiency will generate significantcost savings that constitute a lucrativeROI.

For best results, a total solution ap-proach comprising five main elements isneeded:■ Shipboard data acquisition, both

automated and manually entered■ Communication method for trans-

mitting the data to shore in a timelymanner

■ Shore-based analytical tools for pro-cessing the data

■ Intuitive, easy-to-use displays ofdata and analytical results, includ-ing report-generating capabilities

■ Ongoing user training and awareness-raising programs

Jeppesen has developed a suite of

integrated software and hardware toolsthat is designed to address each of theseneeds. For data acquisition, it includes auser-friendly shipboard event logging

FIGURE 2

Route optimization using VVOS.

application for consistent and easy re-porting of latest ship operating details.Reporting is facilitated by automatingentry of data that are available on theship’s network, supplemented with user-friendly data entry screens for parametersthat must be manually entered. Thesedata may be delivered shoreside via the

ship’s email system; for more frequentand timely updates, a low-cost shipboarddata acquisition and communication toolmay be used, which monitors and com-municates local environmental, perfor-mance, and user-entered data to a secureshore-based server using a low earthorbit (LEO) satellite constellation.

January/Febru

Upon arrival at Jeppesen’s shore-based server, numerous software toolsare applied for storing and analyzing thedata. VVOS route optimization softwaremay be employed to find the “optimalroute” for a comparison benchmark.

The data and analytical results maybe reviewed by operations managers

FIGURE 3

VVOS comparison of the same route using speed management and constant RPM strategies. The constant RPM strategy (Route 2) consumes 28MT more fuel and increases transit time by over 0.5 h.

ary 2013 Volume 47 Number 1 91

92 Marine Technology Society Journal

using a shore-side fleet managementutility that integrates fleet-wide voyagedata into a single database. This secureWeb-based system provides operationsmanagers with a user-friendly dashboardthat allows them to quickly determinewhich vessels in their fleet are havingissues. The tool provides the ability totrack vessels routes, ETA reliability,fuel analysis, and weather forecasts, andpublish reports tailored to the customer’sneeds, including SEEMP results, at thepress of a button (Figure 6).

Training andRaising Awareness

Two aspects of an efficiency man-agement program that are often over-looked or undervalued are trainingand raising awareness. Both IMO andOCIMF emphasize this in their pub-lications. It is not enough for only thecaptain and officers to support the effort.An overarching culture of conservationaboard the ship should be developedthrough training, supplemented withsimple promotions such as encourag-ing the use of waste recycling facilitiesand turning off unnecessary lighting.Special incentives such as rewardingcrews that provide the greatest energysavings and recognizing individualswith “green ship” awards and trainingcertificates may helpmotivate shipboardpersonnel to support the program.

New tools intended to improve ef-ficiency will require training for theirproper and effective use. This trainingshould be repeated regularly to accom-modate captains and crew cycling be-tween ship and shore. A captain returningto the ship after several months leavemay not feel comfortable with the newprocedures and so may revert to older,more familiar operatingmethods. To helpprevent this, a company’s efficiencymanagement programmust be strongly

FIGURE 4

Actual transoceanic passages conducted using traditional weather routing. Total number ofpassages = 32; mean value = 5.36%; excess tons fuel consumed compared to “optimal route” = 85.

FIGURE 5

Actual transoceanic passages conducted using VVOS. Total number of passages = 40; meanvalue = 2.16%; excess tons fuel consumed compared to “optimal route” = 22.

supported throughout the highest levelsof management, with regular audits toensure that it is being adhered to.

In this age of cost cutting and crewreduction, new processes implementedon the ship will be poorly received un-less they offer at least the perceptionof a net reduction in work load. Thisimportant human factor can make thedifference between success and failureof a new initiative such as efficiencymanagement and can only be solvedwith intimate domain knowledge ofthe shipboard working environment.Duplication of effort with existing pro-cesses that already exist on the ship willbe quickly perceived as such and ac-cepted only with reluctance. For exam-ple, if a ship already provides manually

prepared noon reports and is now re-quired to add daily SEEMP updates,the SEEMP tool should be able to alsoprocess the noon reports as a matter ofcourse, and ideally, streamline the pro-cess through automated data entry andreport generation. A good design goalfor developers of shipboard softwareshould be that every new product willprovide a net reduction of the captainand crew’s workload.

Where Do We GoFrom Here?

While good progress is being madeon multiple fronts in efficiency manage-ment, one area still presents significantdifficulties—that of fleet deployment

January/Febru

management and logistics. This is theproblem of optimizing the assignmentof ships to passages and cargo to ships tomaximize operating efficiency and profit.Objectives include, for example, match-ing the best-suited vessels and crews foreach specific voyage, minimizing ballastvoyages (transporting empty vessels, con-tainers, and crews to where they areneeded), efficient loading and unloadingof cargo in port, optimizing “bunkering”or refueling, and recovering quicklyfrom schedule disruptions caused byheavy weather and equipment mal-functions. Several independent studiessuggest that this type of transportationmanagement has the greatest potentialfor efficiency gains, as much as 50%,compared with other technological and

FIGURE 6

FleetManager dashboard.

ary 2013 Volume 47 Number 1 93

operational measures, which typicallyrange from1%to10%(Alvik et al., 2009;IMO, 2009c; Poulovassilis, 2010).

Optimizing fleet deployment is notunlike the problem encountered in thecommercial aviation industry. Solvingit involves a large number of variablesand constraints that change with everydeployment. Toward this end, Jeppesenengineers, in concert with Boeing Re-search and Technology, are developingnew advanced optimization processes thatwill be especially useful in both the avi-ation and maritime industries, for fleetdeployment management, routing of ves-sel convoys, and other applications wheremultiple objectives must be satisfied.

ConclusionManagement of ship operating effi-

ciency, due to its complex interactions,must be an integrated total solution thatextends across the entire operation of thefleet. No single metric can be used toindicate success or failure of improvingoverall efficiency. Rather, a comparativeanalysis of multiple metrics is required.Furthermore, to be viable, efficiencymanagement must accommodate oper-ating objectives, priorities, and constraints.

While new regulations such as theMARPOL SEEMP requirement aresteps in the right direction for im-proving ship operating efficiency, suchmeasures are only as good as the in-formation and insights they provide.When properly designed and imple-mented, they will generate significantsavings that constitute lucrative returnson investment. For best results, a totalsolution approach should include theseten steps for success:■ Develop and maintain a compre-

hensive plan, including careful selec-tion of relevant key performanceindicators for measuring efficiencyperformance.

94 Marine Technology Society Journa

■ Clearly define quantifiable metrics,along with the required inputs andmethods of obtaining the data.

■ Set realistic goals for each evaluationperiod to measure rates of success.These goals should be adjusted reg-ularly to accommodate relative prog-ress and changes in objectives.

■ Use historical data from the ship’slog to establish existing performancebaselines and identify areas obvi-ously needing improvement.

■ Facilitate accurate data acquisitionfor shipboard performance moni-toring, including automated dataentry and error-checking where pos-sible, supplemented with office-supplied shore-based data.

■ Utilize a reliable communicationmethod for transmitting shipboarddata to shore in a timely manner.

■ Implement advanced analyticaltools for shore-based processingof the data.

■ Enable constructive, intuitive eval-uation of the results through easy-to-use information visualizationtools and displays.

■ Include automated report-generatingtools for dissemination of results,recommendations, and auditingpurposes.

■ Maintain a robust user training andawareness-raising program with sup-port at all levels of management.In such a complex and evolving

process, one cannot simply deliver aproduct and expect it to fulfill thecustomer’s expectations for very long.Rather, producing good results repeat-edly over the long term requires work-ing closely with each customer on anongoing basis. Toward this end, serviceproviders in this industry must also of-fer comprehensive customer supportand consulting services. In addition toassisting with developing and implement-ing efficiency management programs,

l

related professional services may include,for example, around-the-clock ship rout-ing guidance, product deployment andmaintenance support, and special casestudies such as incident investigationsand other voyage analyses involving routesimulations using historical weather data.To enhance user skills and awareness,training, workshops, and seminars shouldbe offered regularly on relevant maritimetopics, including efficiency management,heavy weather damage avoidance, andadvanced product application techniques.

Author:Philip J. BallouJeppesen a Boeing Company1000 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 108Alameda, CA 94501Email: Phil.Ballou@jeppesen.com

ReferencesAlvik, S., Eide, M.S., Endresen, O.,

Hoffmann, P., & Longva, T. 2009. Pathways

to low carbon shipping—abatement potential

towards 2030. Det Norske Veritas (DNV),

December 2009.

International Maritime Organization,

(IMO). 2009a. Guidelines for voluntary use

of the ship energy efficiency operational indi-

cator (EEOI), MEPC.1/Circ.684. IMO,

London, UK, Aug 2009.

IMO. 2009b. Prevention of air pollution from

ships—example of a ship energy efficiency

management plan, submitted by Oil Compa-

nies International Marine Forum (OCIMF),

MEPC62/INF.10. IMO,London,UK,April 2011.

IMO. 2009c. Second IMO GHG Study

2009, Section 5—Technological and operational

potential for reduction of emissions. IMO,

London, UK. pp. 44-59.

IMO. 2012a. 2012 Guidelines on the method

of calculation of the attained energy efficiency

design index (EEDI) for new ships, MEPC.

212(63). IMO, London, UK, March 2012.

IMO. 2012b. 2012 Guidelines for the devel-

opment of a ship energy efficiency manage-

ment plan (SEEMP), MEPC.213(63). IMO,

London, UK, March 2012.

Lloyds Register. 2011. Implementing a ship

energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP):

Guidance for shipowners and operators,

Version 1.1. Lloyds Regester, London, UK,

Nov 2011.

Oil Companies International Marine

Forum (OCIMF). 2009. Energy efficiency

and fuel management. London, UK: OCIMF.

Poulovassilis, A. 2010. Innovation in shipping—

green vessel of the future. Lloyds Register,

presented at Euromed Management Maritime

Forum2010.Marseille, France, September 2010.

January/February 2013 Volume 47 Number 1 95